The Grand Confluence
Markendeya Yeddanapudi
The Grand Confluence
You consist of cells. In the cells there are atoms. In an atom, there is the nucleus consisting of protons or the units of positive electromagnetism. Hovering around the nucleus are electrons, the units of negative electromagnetism. The interaction between the protons and electrons in you results in the creation of photons in the infrared range. As a life form you are an emotional being. It means that you are a confluence of electromagnetism, emotions and consciousness. Actually your life is electromagnetism in action, creating diverse varieties of consciousness. The consciousness travels in emotions, feelings and perceptions based on electromagnetism. They become the paradigm bases of understanding, manifestations of electromagnetism.
The infrared rays emanating from you create heat or the movement of molecules and atoms around you, creating interactions around you. A tiny portion of the infrared range photons escape into the cosmos, creating your connection to the universe, the ultimate gigantic web of vibrating connections, which include you.
When everything in the Universe is connected to everything else, the universe is vibrating with everything participating in the vibrations, which includes you. Ultimately it is consciousness in diverse situations that is vibrating. As you are part of the Universe, your life as vibrations must be complementing the diverse vibrations of nature. Ultimately it is electromagnetism, the local Thermodynamics and the resulting consciousness that must occupy the ultimate paradigm base of the Universe in every understanding.
Now can you repudiate this grand connection of you as bias and get shackled into the mechanical paradigm of Rene Descartes, where emotions and feelings have no place? Today you ostracize consciousness from the cartesianism bonded sciences. Are you not repudiating yourself from your own education, from your perceptions and understandings?
Thanks to cartesianism, the real education is put in the locker of technology, with you reduced into an outsider of the real education. If the education is non Cartesian, your education becomes vibrational with emotions making you understand yourself as a participant in nature. Your education and your self-understanding live together, as part of the vibrations of nature.
As it is, about 95% of the Universe consists of dark matter and dark energy where the Cartesian approach is completely failing. May be the solution lies in including emotions and consciousness also into the sciences. Then electromagnetism, consciousness, Themodynamics and emotions become the basic foundations of education.
A University can pioneer into this new shift in education by first starting a ‘Free Nature Park’ without any tampering as the beginning of the new era of emotional freedom in lessons. When lessons become emotional, every student automatically gets drawn into the lessons, escaping from the Cartesian bigotry.
James Lovelock simply proved that Earth is living Gaia. But he did not deal with the emotional and consciousness aspect of the life form,Gaia.Every life form is a form of consciousness living in continuous emotions and emotion based vibrations.
The non inclusion of consciousness and the resulting emotions in the sciences makes cartesianism itself bigotry. As it is this virulent bigotry is resulting in the continuous economic destruction of nature, with the economics which is indifferent to every ethic. The Cartesian trance is making us unaware of the doom we are unleashing on nature by continuously poisoning the land, water and air and destroying geographies.
Science needs freedom from the Cartesian bigotry.
YM Sarma
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
"Cartesian bigotry" isn't an official academic label, but rather a colloquial or philosophical critique directed at the consequences of René Descartes' philosophy. It describes an extreme rationalist or dualist mindset that dismisses lived, bodily experiences, non-Western epistemologies, or emotional awareness in favor of pure, detached logic and intellect. In modern philosophy, ecology, and social sciences, this concept is unpacked in a few specific ways:[CARTESIAN EFFECT]
- 1 Mind-Body Dualism: Descartes' famous division between the mind (res cogitans) and the physical body (res extensa) is often criticized for elevating pure thought over physical existence. This can lead to a "bigotry" where intellectual prowess is valued above embodied experiences, health, or emotional intelligence.
- 2 Epistemic Exclusion: In cross-cultural and post-colonial studies, the term highlights the prejudice Anglo-American/Western thinkers have historically shown toward non-Western ways of knowing. It describes the dogmatic assertion that only scientific, mathematically-backed Cartesian logic represents "truth," while ignoring or devaluing indigenous, spiritual, or experiential wisdom.
- 3 The Myth of Detachment: It is used to criticize the idea that an objective observer can exist in a vacuum, entirely stripped of social biases, historical context, or subjective reality.
Despite decades of rich research in comparative philosophy and comparative education, there persists a strong disinterest in East Asian educational philosophy within mainstream Anglo-American educational research. Despite a wealth of new translations of key sources and world-leading educational outcomes (enrollment, achievement, equity, health, safety, environmental impact), a strong indifference to East Asian practices prevails.
Viewed historically and sociologically, it is unmistakable that East Asia has learned far more about the Western educational traditions, than the West has learned about East Asian ones. Over the past century or more, the pace and scope of East Asia’s learning and self-transformation via the encounter with the West has been breathtaking. While Anglo-American commentators may be inclined to view this as implicit confirmation of the superiority of Western civilization or Western education, upon closer inspection, this transformation/learning across East Asia has really been a move toward greater comprehensiveness. It has been an enduring pattern of encounter across East Asia for millennia: the Japanese and Korean voluntary adoption of the Chinese script, philosophy, and learning; the Chinese fusion of Buddhism from India with Confucian and Daoist traditions, and the further merging with Korean (Shaman) and Japanese (Shinto) traditions.
Meontology signifies ‘non-being’: what lies beyond Being. Here the term Being is used at it is traditionally understood in Western scholarship—Being as presence and essence. In East Asia languages Meontology is approximated by the term Dao 道 or Wu/Mu 無 (nothingness)[KR CONSEQUENTIAL SHUNYA BUDDHA PHILOSOPHY OUTCOME] . The idea is surprisingly simple: whenever being is identified, it necessarily entails something that is beyond being to make it possible. White only exists because black (non-white) does. [KR THAT IS HOW YING-YONG ARISE WHITE AND BLACK] Good only exists because evil (non-good) does. Everything is relationally co-constituted. Self-identity emerges via difference, not essence. What is not gives rise to what is, and vice-versa, in a dynamic intertwining. { KR Unfortunately, even while disregarding east Asia, even east Asia avoided India from Vedic principle only, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism arose.]
Non-being is not a simple claim that something does not exist, i.e., that something once present now no longer does. Instead, it is the claim that something does not exist alone. Every entity always and only exists in relation - logically, semantically, ontologically. ‘Relational co-creation’ also works as a positive translation in most cases, with variations on the phrase ‘co-dependent origination’ prominent across East Asian languages (Chinese: yuanqi 緣起, Japanese: engi, Korean: yeongi). Buddhist philosopher, Nagarjuna (c.150-250 CE), developed a concise exposition in his classic text The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way:
1 Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness
That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the Middle Way
2 “All philosophies are mental fabrications. There has never been a single doctrine by which one could enter the true essence of things.” ― Nagarjuna
3 “Since all is empty, all is possible.” ― Nagarjuna
4 “Although you may spend your life killing, you will not exhaust all your foes. But if you quell your own anger, your real enemy will be slain.”
5 “I am not, I will not be. [kr anti-cartesian]
I have not, I will not have.
This frightens all children,
And kills fear in the wise.”― Nāgārjuna
6 “The victorious ones have said
That emptiness is the relinquishing of all views.
For whomever emptiness is a view,
That one has achieved nothing.” ― Nāgārjuna,
7 The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna's Mūla-madhyama-kakārikā-----“the whole world is cause and effect; excluding this, there is no sentient being. from factors which are empty, empty factors originate.
8-those who impute origination to even very subtle entities are unwise and have not seen the meaning of conditioned origination.
9 -there is nothing to be denied and nothing to be affirmed. see the real correctly, for he who sees the real correctly is released”― nagarjuna
10 While Nagarjuna was Indian, his Madhyamika (literally, ‘middle way’, Chinese: zhong-guan-lun 中觀論) approach, carried via Buddhist texts and teachers to East Asia, found a receptive audience. Across East Asian thought, relationality, nothingness and the middle way were already dominant themes, as found in the visible/not-visible (yin/yang 陰陽) of the Yijing, to the being/non-being (you/wu 有無) of Daoism, to the middle way of Zhongyong (中庸)(Izutsu, Citation1989; Mingran, Citation2008). The harmonization of Madhyamika and these ideas gave rise to Sinicization of the Buddhist logic, as found in the Diamond Sutra: ‘A is not A, therefore it is A’ (Nagatomo, Citation2000), and institutionalized in the Chinese Buddhist schools Tiantai (天台), Hua-yan/Kegon (華厳), and Chan/Zen (禅). Even right up to today, this meontology finds modern articulation in, say, Nishida’s Zen-inspired ‘logic of place’ (basho 場所), with commentators tracing it to fusion of Madhyamika logic and Chinese thought.
But why is the persistence of Meontology significant? If a Western metaphysics of presence gives rise to forms of learning akin to Cartesian Consciousness, Meontology, in contrast, gives rise to forms of learning via negative experience. How so? Anything ‘known’ (present, visible, identifiable) must inevitably entail something that is not-known, not-visible, or not-present. This shift ‘knowing’ to seeing aspects, in contrast to ‘knowing’ as seeing some essence underlying presence. But this is also more than seeing. It goes beyond epistemology: Meontology thwarts reification from the very outset via relationality, and this implicates everything—our self, being, existence. In this approach, the drive is not to ‘see through deception’, but to seek ‘greater comprehensiveness’. In Meontology, an a priori assumption that one is seeing only one-side/aspect replaces an a priori assumption of distortion or deceit (Descartes/Kant). To learn, one must undergo a negative experience: negate one’s tendency to see only one side, and indeed negate the fundamental presumption that something can have only one-side.
Unlearning: Pedagogy in Meontology
This phrase, and the whole model of ‘unlearning’ itself, comes from Zeami Motoki, a prominent Noh playwright who lived in 14-fifteenth Century Japan and whose works are still widely performed in contemporary Japan. Zeami developed the pedagogy to discuss both how to train performers, and how they should interact with the audience. Zeami’s pedagogical model was inspired by Zen, although the balance of deduction from Zen and induction from personal experience remains productively unclear .
This Zen-inspired model traces emergence from the ground and return to the ground; a process of dis-embedding and re-embedding; the emergence of pattern, and then a return of pattern to interpenetration with the ground. From Zeami’s perspective, these are the first and most fundamental ‘skills’ that all human beings learn. While the term ‘skills’ has an increasingly pejorative and reductive connotation among philosophers and theorists, it signifies something closer to praxis, as both practice and custom. Whilst these skills enable us to ‘perform’ in a given milieu, these very same skills have separated us from a larger comprehensiveness. The ‘ground’ has been forgotten, becoming invisible. When we mistakenly assume that our narrowed ‘articulation’ is the ground, our generalizations become self-reinforcing: the more we utilize them, the more they reinforce our ‘skills’ (horizon). This tends towards reification of ourselves and our world.
Yet, when experience—in the genuine sense described by Gadamer - occurs, “false generations are continually refuted” and “what was regarded as typical is shown not to be so.” This is an “essentially negative” process, approximating Zeami’s ‘unlearning as negation’ (−). For Gadamer, it is through the negative movement that one approaches a more comprehensive position, and simultaneous realization of our own finitude: “our existence depends, finally, upon whether we have learned to see the limits which our own nature has set for us, over against the nature of others”. The older horizon (articulation) enables future experience and transformation, but genuine (negative) experience de-reifies that horizon, simultaneously yielding a more ‘comprehensive’ view and being-in-the-world.
Zeami’s pedagogy might remain a medieval Japanese oddity, leaving its underlying (me)ontology and onto-hermeneutical concerns overshadowed by obscure language and references, incomprehensible to modern readers schooled into Cartesian Consciousness.Nagarjuna to Nishida Kitaro, the Madhyamika concern is “with recovering and expressing the experience of the here-and-now within which the original unity of reality is to be recognized”, a form of “philosophy in medias res [which] begins in the gaps left by abstract concepts about reality” (Ibid.). At the level of abstraction (linguistic concepts), one is unable to ‘fuse’ the contradictory (+/−). But Madhyamika Dialectics uses conceptual contradiction to affect a perspectival shift from a dualistic stance to non-dualistic one. The situation of +/− forces us into practice and harmonization of one’s own self with the world. We become medias res. This thereby removes the dualistic ontology baked into the very foundations of Reason—and into Cartesian Consciousness.
Cheng does briefly focus on the Yijing’s use of kun (坤), defined as a receptivity functioning to “void one’s subjectivity and prejudices so that one can see things as naturally as possible and so that one can see things as a whole”. Cheng prioritizes the Yijing as the tradition that makes possible an alternative East Asian onto-hermeneutics. The Confucian-Taoistic dialectics finally prevail over the Buddhist themes in the revival of the Confucian School—the birth of Neo-Confucianism. On the other hand, even though the Confucian-Taoistic dialectics succeeds in overcoming the native Buddhist dialectics of Madhyamika as a way of thinking, there is, of course no denial that ingredients of the Buddhist dialectics and its associated metaphysics of man and the world may have also subtly entered the bloodstream of Neo-Confucianism.
Conclusion: A return to hermeneutical consciousness
In the context of this Special Issue, we view Cartesian Consciousness as the root cause of both the Enlightenment’s anti-tradition tradition Cartesian Consciousness, marked by self-forgetting, skepticism and non-relational modes of being, is what marginalizes and undermines comparative philosophy and comparative education. On a much grander scale, Cartesian Consciousness is one major reason that a dialogue across civilizations (educational traditions) has been repeatedly imagined, but never realized in practice. This necessarily entails a ‘reclaiming’ of traditional thought, language, and culture submerged under the Enlightenment inundation of educational philosophy and theory. To the degree to which these can be recovered and elaborated, they will help address a major problem in contemporary educational scholarship: the apathy and disdain within Anglo-American research for other forms of educational philosophy and practice, a stance that blocks transformation and mutual learning across cultures and traditions in education.In this encounter, had the heirs of the Western Enlightenment taken their East Asian interlocuters and their educational practices as equals—equally embodying a ‘tradition’—the gradual fusion of horizons would have occurred. Hermeneutics of Faith, by contrast, proposes that nothing can be known without some degree of trust in what is to be known; lack of trust prevents us from letting the other interpellated us and refute our (false) generalizations. Without that negative experience, we are not interrupted, hence not learning (knowing) at all. But without negation, false generalizations proliferate unimpeded. The more we utilize them, the more they reinforce our ‘skills’ (horizon), and reify ourselves and our world.
-------------------------------------------------------
How or from where the east Asia idea emanated?
In Hinduism, "Neti-Neti" (Sanskrit: नेति नेति) means "not this, not this". It is a philosophical framework and meditation technique used to describe the absolute reality, or Brahman.
Why Hinduism Uses "Neti-Neti"
The ultimate reality is infinite, formless, and beyond all attributes (nirguna). Because the human mind relies on sensory perception, language, and concepts to understand reality, it can only comprehend the known (objects, thoughts, feelings, and the material universe).
Hindu sages used the via negativa (the path of negation) to explain the unknown through the known because:
- Limitations of Language: Human words can only describe objects with attributes (e.g., "blue," "large," "angry"). Brahman has no limiting attributes, making any positive description fundamentally inaccurate. [The Observer vs. The Observed:] Any object you can perceive (even your own thoughts, ego, or mind) is "this." The ultimate Subject (the Knower, or Atman) can never be the object of perception. Therefore, by continually negating everything the Self is not, the limiting illusions fall away, leaving only the supreme truth. [The Unconditioned Truth:] Instead of adding definitions, the method strips away the false layers of the ego and material world, leaving only pure, unconditioned awareness. They are in a nutshell explained as,
1 The most famous exposition of this concept appears in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, where the sage Yajnavalkya explains the nature of Brahman to his wife, Maitreyi.
Verse 1
स एष नेति नेत्यत्मा,ऽगृह्यो न हि गृह्यते शीर्यो न हि शीर्यते, असङ्गो न हि सङ्ज्यते, असितो न व्यथते न रिष्यति।
Sa eṣa neti nety-ātmā, 'gṛhyo na hi gṛhyate śīryo na hi śīryate, asango na hi sangyate, asito na vyathate na riṣyati.
Meaning: "That Soul is described as 'not this, not this'. It is incomprehensible, for It is never comprehended. It is imperishable, for It never perishes. It is unattached, for It never attaches Itself. Unfettered, It never trembles, nor is It injured." (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22)
Verse 2
अथ नामधेयं सत्यस्य सत्यं प्राणा वै सत्यं तेषामेष सत्यम्।
Atha nāmadheyaṃ satyasya satyaṃ prāṇā vai satyaṃ teṣāmeṣa satyam.
Meaning: "Its name is 'the Truth of Truth'. The vital forces are the truth, and It is the Truth of them." (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.1.20) [kr TRUTH IS BRAHMAM AND THE TRUTH OF THE TRUTH WHAT IS OR ARE NEGATIVATED TRAITS AS POSITIVE ONES ,IF MIND MAY COMPREHEND]
Verse 3
न तत्र चक्षुर्गच्छति न वाग्गच्छति नो मनो न विद्मो न विजानीमो यथैतदनुशिष्यात् । अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि ।
Na tatra cakṣurgacchati na vāggacchati no mano na vidmo na vijānīmo yathaitadanuśiṣyāt . Anyadeva tadviditāatho aviditādadhi .
Meaning: "The eye does not go there, nor speech, nor the mind. We do not know It, nor do we know how to teach It. It is distinct from the known, and it is above the unknown." (Kena Upanishad 1.3)
Different Hindu philosophical schools (Darshanas) interpret the Upanishadic phrase "Neti-Neti" based on their unique views on the relationship between God, the soul, and the universe. While all schools accept it as a valid scriptural statement, they disagree on whether the negation is absolute or relative.
1. Advaita Vedanta (Absolute Non-Dualism)
Advaita Vedanta, formulated by Adi Shankara, views "Neti-Neti" as an absolute negation of the material universe and individual ego to reveal the sole reality of Brahman The Interpretation: To Advaitins, the world is an illusion (Maya). The phrase does not mean Brahman is "nothingness"; [KR QUITE OPPOSITE OF BUDDISM COMBINED WITYH THE ZENNISM] rather, it strips away the false superimposition (Adhyasa) of name, form, and ego The Method: By stating "not this, not this," the seeker realizes that the witness (Sakshi) cannot be the thing witnessed. Once everything that is not the Self is intellectually discarded, what remains is the foundational, undifferentiated consciousness—Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahman). Shankara's commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad asserts that Brahman has no distinctive marks (Laksana), so negation is the only foolproof way to point to It. [KR NIRGUNA VIZ LAKSHANA]
2. Vishishtadvaita Vedanta (Qualified Non-Dualism)
Ramanuja, the pioneer of Vishishtadvaita, strongly rejected the Advaitic idea that the world is an illusion. Consequently, his school reinterprets "Neti-Neti" to preserve the reality of the universe.
- The Interpretation: Ramanuja argues that "Neti-Neti" does not negate the existence of the world or its attributes. Instead, it negates the idea that Brahman's nature is limited to just those attributes.
- The Method: It means "Brahman is not only this, nor is He only that." The universe (Jagadjala) and individual souls (Jivas) are real attributes or the "body" of Brahman (Sharira-Shariri Bhava). Therefore, the negation denies any limitation or imperfection in Brahman, emphasizing that His glorious, divine attributes are infinite and beyond human comprehension.
2A Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza holds a distinctive, if enigmatic, place in the Western philosophical canon. Although usually considered as a Cartesian rationalist, Spinoza’s metaphysical and epistemological views continue to be considered somewhat anomalous within the Occidental tradition.1 Arguably, in fact, much of his influential Ethics espouses a substantively non-“Western” philosophical doctrine beneath orthodox rationalist terminology and organization. I contend that, although it employs decidedly Western-rationalist methods of inquiry, The Ethics actually proposes a system strikingly similar to the ontological-philosophical worldview found in Advaita Vedanta Hinduism. Core similarities between the schools include their (1) non-dualist, monistic metaphysical systems, (2) a strong relationship between humans and the divine, and (3) a potential for living liberation. This paper will consist of comparative analyses of metaphysical and epistemological facets of both the Advaita and Spinozistic philosophical traditions, including overviews of both schools, and concluding with a suggestion that these similarities might prompt a reexamination and critique of the oft-cited East-West dichotomy.]]
{{{ At the core of this exploration lies the question “Who am I?”—a foundational inquiry in both philosophy and psychology. Indian Vedanta, in particular, offers a distinctive perspective through Self-Enquiry (Atma Vichara), a practice of direct introspection into the nature of the self that bridges philosophical reflection and psychological application. Foundational texts, including the Upanishads and the works of Ramana Maharshi, were prioritized for their theoretical insights, while contemporary studies, such as those on mindfulness and metacognitive therapy, were included to contextualize these principles within modern therapeutic frameworks. This dual emphasis ensures that the framework is both philosophically robust and clinically relevant, offering a foundation for future integration of Self-Enquiry into therapeutic practice.
In the 18th century, Immanuel Kant introduced the idea of the transcendental self, a priori to experience. Kant posited that the self is not an empirical entity but rather the foundation of all cognition and the unity of consciousness. His transcendental analysis sought to uncover the structures of experience and knowledge that make self-consciousness possible. The 20th century saw a significant shift with Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism, which argued that “existence precedes essence.” Sartre proposed that the Self is not defined by any inherent nature but is continuously created through choices and actions. His existential psychoanalysis explored how individuals construct their identities through freedom and responsibility, emphasizing the Self’s active role in shaping its own existence. In psychology, the concept of Self is a complex and multidimensional construct, intricately woven into theories of identity, self-perception, and personal development. Freud’s structural model posits the Ego as the arbiter between the primal impulses of the Id and the moral imperatives of the Superego, maintaining a delicate equilibrium between these forces. Jung deepened this understanding by introducing the Self as the overarching integrator of the conscious and unconscious mind, with individuation being the journey toward psychic wholeness.
- identical to the finite world in its current state, while acknowledging that the world is a real manifestation of Brahman's power. It warns the seeker not to mistake the temporary, changing forms of nature for the eternal, unchanging source.
Quick Comparison Table
|
Philosophical School5] |
Is the Material World Real? |
Meaning of "Neti-Neti" |
Ultimate Goal of Negation |
|
Advaita (Shankara) |
No (It is an illusion/Maya) |
Absolute negation of all names and forms. |
To realize that the individual soul is the formless Brahman. |
|
Vishishtadvaita (Ramanuja) |
Yes (It is the body of God) |
Negation of any limitations on God's attributes. |
To realize God's infinite, grand nature and surrender (Prapatti). |
|
Dvaita (Madhva) |
Yes (It is eternally separate) |
Negation of identity between God, soul, and matter. |
To realize the absolute independence of God and one's dependence on Him. |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HENCE, WEST CARTESIAN IS BLOWN TO PIECES AGAINST THE EAST AND INDIAN EXPLANATIONS OF SHUNYA AS MAYA WHILE ESTABLISING THE WHOLE POORNAM IS BRAHMAM AS SHIVA LINGAM IS SEEN. K RAJARAM IRS 25626
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "societyforservingseniors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to society4servingse...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CACDCHCJeR4KpYJ7Z-dbtVWreSnHZrXWtpYCLPiejkfBS2pDFsg%40mail.gmail.com.
Markendeya Yeddanapudi
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
ABSTRACT: "Cartesian bigotry" isn't an official academic label, but rather a colloquial or philosophical critique directed at the consequences of René Descartes' philosophy. It describes an extreme rationalist or dualist mindset that dismisses lived, bodily experiences, non-Western epistemologies, or emotional awareness in favor of pure, detached logic and intellect. In modern philosophy, ecology, and social sciences, this concept is unpacked in a few specific ways: [CARTESIAN EFFECT]
Meontology signifies ‘non-being’: what lies beyond Being. Here the term Being is used at it is traditionally understood in Western scholarship—Being as presence and essence. In East Asia languages Meontology is approximated by the term Dao 道 or Wu/Mu 無 (nothingness)[KR CONSEQUENTIAL SHUNYA BUDDHA PHILOSOPHY OUTCOME] . The idea is surprisingly simple: whenever being is identified, it necessarily entails something that is beyond being to make it possible. White only exists because black (non-white) does. [KR THAT IS HOW YING-YONG ARISE WHITE AND BLACK]
While Nagarjuna was Indian, his Madhyamika (literally, ‘middle way’, Chinese: zhong-guan-lun approach, carried via Buddhist texts and teachers to East Asia, found a receptive audience. The harmonization of Madhyamika and these ideas gave rise to Sinicization of the Buddhist logic, as found in the Diamond Sutra: ‘A is not A, therefore it is A’ (Nagatomo, Citation2000), and institutionalized in the Chinese Buddhist schools Tiantai Hua-yan/Kegon (and Chan/Zen. Even right up to today, this Meontology finds modern articulation in, say, Nishida’s Zen-inspired ‘logic of place’ .
But why is the persistence of Meontology significant? If a Western metaphysics of presence gives rise to forms of learning akin to Cartesian Consciousness, Meontology, in contrast, gives rise to forms of learning via negative experience. How so? Anything ‘known’ (present, visible, identifiable) must inevitably entail something that is not-known, not-visible, or not-present. This shift ‘knowing’ to seeing aspects, in contrast to ‘knowing’ as seeing some essence underlying presence. But this is also more than seeing. It goes beyond epistemology: Meontology thwarts reification from the very outset via relationality, and this implicates everything—our self, being, existence. In this approach, the drive is not to ‘see through deception’, but to seek ‘greater comprehensiveness’. In Meontology, an a priori assumption that one is seeing only one-side/aspect replaces an a priori assumption of distortion or deceit (Descartes/Kant). To learn, one must undergo a negative experience: negate one’s tendency to see only one side, and indeed negate the fundamental presumption that something can have only one-side.
“void one’s subjectivity and prejudices so that one can see things as naturally as possible and so that one can see things as a whole”. Cheng prioritizes the Yijing as the tradition that makes possible an alternative East Asian onto-hermeneutics
Hermeneutics of Faith, by contrast, proposes that nothing can be known without some degree of trust in what is to be known; lack of trust prevents us from letting the other interpellated us and refute our (false) generalizations. Without that negative experience, we are not interrupted, hence not learning (knowing) at all.
अथ नामधेयं सत्यस्य सत्यं प्राणा वै सत्यं तेषामेष सत्यम्।
Atha nāmadheyaṃ satyasya satyaṃ prāṇā vai satyaṃ teṣāmeṣa satyam.
Meaning: "Its name is 'the Truth of Truth'. The vital forces are the truth, and It is the Truth of them." (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.1.20) [kr TRUTH IS BRAHMAM AND THE TRUTH OF THE TRUTH WHAT IS OR ARE NEGATIVATED TRAITS AS POSITIVE ONES ,IF MIND MAY COMPREHEND]
Na tatra cakṣurgacchati na vāggacchati no mano na vidmo na vijānīmo yathaitadanuśiṣyāt . Anyadeva tadviditāatho aviditādadhi .
Meaning: "The eye does not go there, nor speech, nor the mind. We do not know It, nor do we know how to teach It. It is distinct from the known, and it is above the unknown." (Kena Upanishad 1.3)
Different Hindu philosophical schools (Darshanas) interpret the Upanishadic phrase "Neti-Neti" based on their unique views on the relationship between God, the soul, and the universe. While all schools accept it as a valid scriptural statement, they disagree on whether the negation is absolute or relative.
HENCE, WEST CARTESIAN IS BLOWN TO PIECES AGAINST THE EAST AND INDIAN EXPLANATIONS OF SHUNYA AS MAYA WHILE ESTABLISING THE WHOLE POORNAM IS BRAHMAM AS SHIVA LINGAM IS SEEN. K RAJARAM IRS 25626